Regarding Seeking Alpha. I should say that the sentiment about Seeking Alpha surprises me, but having covered Sirius XM for years, I have learned that most people fail to take the extra steps needed to do a bit of their own research. There are many out there who make statements like, "Seeking Alpha is negative on Sirius...do not read anything they write."

"If you take part in the premium program at Seeking Alpha, you get paid on the basis of the number of pageviews you receive. As such, many writers focus on stocks that tend to generate — without much effort on the part of the writer — a large number of views. Often, populating an article with stocks like $SIRI, $LVLT, $C when it was sub-$5 and a big, passionate name like $AAPL, guarantees a successful article, assuming you use the number of pageviews an article generates as a measure of success."

See that's the problem... It's obvious there is a bunch of crap being put out there that doesn't require much effort from the author.

"You can write articles all day long that say the same thing in a different way about a stock like $SIRI, but sooner or later, your readers see through it. They realize that you provide them with little value, therefore they have no reason to follow you. They leave with little desire to consume your next article."

Right... so how about writing something when you have something unique and useful to say? Geez, the Yahoo headlines area is full of SA articles. I didn't click on one and from now on will not.

"Simply put, I ****ed up in how I treated $SIRI. I was a bear and, minus any sound logic, I became a bull. Why did I do this? It was the easy route. It was a guarantee at pageviews. I could feel the reward in that approach slowly wearing itself out. The inane conversations that followed in most of my $SIRI articles as well as my disdain for writing the next one tipped me off to this reality."

I'm guessing there are a lot of "authors" that take "the easy route". Look for more flip flops as authors run out of new things to say.

As far as your comment about people should do more due diligence. Spencer, your articles used to be....eh.. and some still are, part of my dd. Specifically, your articles containing all the facts and figures related to sales figures and quarterly estimates. Interesting that one of your recent articles on SA linke to your SiriusBuzz article for readers to get the charts. That's kind of... i don't know.. a little wierd. Why not just include the charts in the SA article like everyone else does? Why point readers to a SiriusBuzz article that contained "basically" the same content to access the charts?

As far as you catching flak...instead of getting defensive, why don't you take an honest look at your writing style and try and figure out what the issue is? If you really are not being negative out of some kind of personal reason, then your writing style isn't being clear enough. You are catching shit for a reason.

Let's get one thing straight.... I have a year end price target of $2.70 to $2.80. I have had that price target in tact for a couple of months now.

I do not have a "price target" on Seeking alpha. What I stated there was that events that were happening could lead sirius XM to a low point of about $1.50. My apologies for being a bit off. I think it bottomed at $1.61

I do not make the big bucks. not even close

Originally Posted by Sirius Roadkill

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the target was $2.70-$2.80 . . . lemme see, yes here it is . . . right here:

I have read what Rocco wrote. He has his opinion and that is quite fine.

I have links to my site and others in seeking alpha all of the time. What is weird about it? For the record, I did try to put the chart in the seeking alpha piece, but their formatting is not very friendly, and the chart bled through into their sidebars. I would have looked like shit. Thus I put it on SiriusBuzz to solve the problem.

You wont click on SA articles....that is fine, just understand that you are missing some well thought out pieces because you are being a stubborn ass. If you want to be a stubborn ass that is quite fine. I hate some of the liberal political talk on Sirius XM. If I was like you, I would simply tune out the whole service because some liberal shmuck wants to take my money and gift it to everyone else.

I could give two shits about my writing style. If people want cheerleading posts, wild ass assumptions, and a rha-rha attitude they have outlets to find that. I used to have such a person here. There is a reason they were asked to leave.

I am catching shit because people do not want to hear that the company is not perfect. People do not want to hear that numbers may be off sometimes. They want to hear all is right with the company. I do not feel it is, and will speak to that. I do not do this for a full time job. I am not begging my readers for money even though the economy had me make 40% of what i did the year before in my regular career. I am not pumping my articles or site across the Internet message boards. If I wanted to make more money, I could make it off of the backs of readers by making this site a subscription site and then feel compelled to "produce" day after day regardless of the facts or quality of work.

Seeking Alpha allows this site to get a bit more exposure, and allows authors to get a little compensation for the efforts they put in. I do not write for a living. I do not write as a main source of my income. I do not beg people for money, nor do I begrudge a writer for getting at least some compensation for the time and effort they put in.

Hi - pardon this short interruption. If you are new to this site and are enjoying some of the compelling content here at Sirius Buzz, please stop by and check out our "He Hate Me" thread for the "Best of Spencer Osborne" . . . also sometimes referred to as "Spencer Osborne - A Closer Look"

I will break it down for you folks in this audio Obama says that he not only thinks that the "United States Constitution" was FLAWED when it came to redistribution of wealth, but thinks it was ok for the courts to change the "United States Constitution".

Now you would have to be ether a, twit, or a dumbass, or a dumbass twit, or a out and out jackass to vote for Obama after hearing that.

Spence, that was pretty much the response I was expecting from you. *sigh*

I'll say this about SA articles. I have spent way too much of my time clicking on that BS. There is very little...no.. there is nothing of value there, other than your articles that break down numbers. For that I thank you for the time you put in. So any way, I have put the time in reading that BS to make a determination that there is nothing of value there. Has nothing to do with being a "stubborn ass" ... more like a "Sick of the bullshit I'm reading on SA ass"

I'm laughing at your analogy which is very narrow minded. SA is more like the liberal channels that you hate (and I hate as well). Guess what? I'm tuning them out!

The problem with charts and pictures on seeking alpha is that there is no ability to "resize" an image. This means that i have to spend time in photo shop, paint, etc to get a properly sized image onto seeking alpha. The issue with that is that some of the data becomes almost unreadable. It is far easier to get it up on my site where it looks good and simply link over to it.

For me seeking alpha is a way for me to get a modest return on all of the time I spend researching and writing about stocks. Quite frankly it seems to be a thankless "hobby". I tend to get the wrath of one side or the other all of the time. It's okay, I have thick skin, but when I get real busy and am searching for spare minutes anywhere I can find them I begin to wonder why I even bother sometimes.

My ire about the seeking alpha subject is very few people even understand what they do. They are not originators of content. they are not bullish on anything or bearish on anything. Articles get submitted and if they pass muster they get published. All to often I see people level criticism at seeing alpha saying that they are bashing the stock. Seeking alpha is not bashing anything. It is the opinions of independent writers. SIRI is an easy target for writers because it is a popular stock.

Part of this problem stems from bloggers bashing seeking alpha for one reason or another when their real beef is something else entirely. I hear the "cash for clicks" and "click whore" terms bandied about all to often. 99% of people out there would never take the time to do what I do for the small "return" i get from it.

I see very bad information on Seeking Alpha a lot, and some of it from people who SIRI followers would think know better. There was a piece this week. I sent the author a professional heads up as to why his thesis was off, but he ignored it and failed to make a correction. Now, yet again, we have some SIRI faithful being led down an incorrect path with mis-information. The sad part....the author only needed to take 10 minutes to make a phone call to have the correct information. However, he is stubborn and wants to believe his own agenda. Such is life I guess.

On Seeking Alpha I enjoy Crunching Numbers pieces. I take in what Rocco and Cameron have to say. I do not always agree with them, but I can appreciate their take.

Let's get one thing straight.... I have a year end price target of $2.70 to $2.80. I have had that price target in tact for a couple of months now.

I do not have a "price target" on Seeking alpha. What I stated there was that events that were happening could lead sirius XM to a low point of about $1.50. My apologies for being a bit off. I think it bottomed at $1.61

I do not make the big bucks. not even close

Trading at 1.71 close, we now need .99 cents upside to hit the low end of your 2.70 - 2.80 year end range. I would not look for a job as an analyst unless you revise your target to 2.25 maybe. It seems as though even 1.40 could be in play if 1.63 does not hold in this terrible macro market environment. From 1.40, you would be looking at a double in 4 months to the high end of 2.80.